From Singapore: Donald Trump spent years building a political identity around one core foreign policy claim: that he would keep America out of other people's wars. That claim now lies in the rubble of Tehran, alongside a pledge that helped deliver him to the White House twice.
On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated assault on Iran in an operation the US Department of Defense codenamed Epic Fury. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the joint attack, with Trump declaring in an eight-minute video that the operation was "to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests." The strikes targeted leadership compounds, missile facilities, and military infrastructure across Iran. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the attack, with Iranian state media confirming the news and throwing the future of the Islamic Republic into doubt.
The contrast with Trump's own words is stark. Throughout his political career, he positioned himself as the antiwar alternative to what he called the "warmongering" Democrats. In 2011, 2012, and 2013, he posted repeated warnings on Twitter that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran to rescue his falling poll numbers. Days before the 2024 election, he warned that Kamala Harris and her "warmonger cabinet" would invade the Middle East. His own running mate at the time, JD Vance, penned a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "Trump's Best Foreign Policy? Not Starting Any Wars." Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told voters that a vote for Trump was "a vote to end wars, not start them." All of that on-the-record rhetoric now sits uncomfortably beside Operation Epic Fury, as 9News reported.
The administration's stated justification rests on Iran's nuclear programme and its record of support for regional proxy groups. Washington presented Iran with three core demands before the strikes: a permanent end to all uranium enrichment, strict limits on its ballistic missile programme, and a complete halt to support for groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Just before the strikes began, on 27 February, Oman's Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi said a "breakthrough" had been reached and Iran had agreed both to never stockpile enriched uranium and to full verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The strikes proceeded anyway, prompting the Omani foreign minister to express his dismay publicly that active negotiations had been undermined.
In retaliation, Iran launched drones and ballistic missiles throughout the Persian Gulf, targeting Israel and US military bases in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Israel's military confirmed that top Iranian security officials were killed in the initial strikes, including the country's defence minister, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the secretary of the Iranian Security Council. The human toll has been severe. According to 9News, six American service members have been confirmed killed in Iranian retaliatory strikes, with the death toll inside Iran estimated at more than 500, including Khamenei.
The Economic Fallout: Asia in the Crossfire
For Australian exporters and the broader Asia-Pacific economy, the signal from this conflict is already flashing red. Major shipping giants have suspended operations through the Strait of Hormuz, with Maersk, MSC, Hapag-Lloyd, and CMA CGM all issuing fresh guidance amid the deteriorating security situation. According to the US Energy Information Administration, about 20 million barrels of oil worth roughly $500 billion in annual global energy trade transited through the Strait of Hormuz each day in 2024. Some 84 per cent of crude oil shipments through the strait head to Asian markets, with China, India, Japan, and South Korea accounting for a combined 69 per cent of all crude and condensate flows through the waterway.
The market impact has been immediate. Brent crude prices hit a new 52-week high on Monday, rising 7.6 per cent to reach $78.41, while US West Texas Intermediate prices rose more than 7.4 per cent to $72.01. Energy consultant Robert McNally put it bluntly: "A prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a guaranteed global recession." With Australia's largest export markets concentrated in Northeast and Southeast Asia, any sustained disruption to regional energy supply chains will compress demand for Australian commodities and add cost pressures across manufacturing supply chains throughout the Indo-Pacific.
The Polling Reality and the Democratic Argument
Those who opposed military action can point to substantial evidence that most Americans share their concerns. A CNN poll conducted by SSRS found that nearly six in ten Americans disapprove of the US decision to take military action in Iran, with most believing a long-term military conflict is likely. Just 27 per cent of respondents felt the US had made enough effort at diplomacy before using military force, while 39 per cent said Washington had not tried hard enough. Former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, who had long rejected Trump's claims that she sought war with Iran, issued a statement condemning the operation as a "war of choice" and calling for it to end.
Critics have also raised pointed constitutional questions. The Stimson Center's analysts noted that President Trump initiated the war without congressional approval, without a serious public debate, and against what they described as overwhelming public opposition. Republican Representative Thomas Massie and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna sponsored a resolution to bar Trump from taking further military action without congressional approval, with Senator Tim Kaine proposing a similar measure in the Senate. These are not fringe voices. The question of who holds war-making authority under the US Constitution has been contested for decades, and this conflict has brought it sharply back into focus.
The administration's defenders offer substantive counter-arguments that deserve to be taken seriously. Iran's nuclear programme, its support for proxy militias across the region, and its documented crackdown on protesters earlier this year (which the Australian government responded to with targeted sanctions) all represent genuine threats to regional stability. Trump has said the objective "is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats" from Iran. US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz argued the action was lawful, stating that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and that this was "a matter of global security." These are coherent arguments, even if the manner of their execution has generated fierce debate.
Where This Leaves the Region
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi called the attack "unacceptable" and condemned what he described as the "blatant killing of a sovereign leader and the incitement of regime change," warning that the Middle East risked being "pushed into a dangerous abyss." For Canberra, the strategic implications are layered. Australia's key alliance with the United States, its deep trade dependency on China and other Asian economies, and its own commitments under AUKUS all pull in directions that may not always align neatly when Washington makes unilateral decisions of this magnitude.
Trump indicated to The Atlantic that Iran had expressed willingness to talk, and that he had agreed to discussions, though the joint US-Israeli assault came after weeks of nuclear negotiations with Washington and Tehran. Iran's Ali Larijani subsequently ruled out direct negotiations, and Trump told CNN he expected the operation to last around four weeks, saying it was "ahead of schedule." The path to a negotiated end remains deeply uncertain.
Whatever one's view of whether the strategic objectives justified the means, the gap between Trump's repeated pre-election promises and the reality of a US-led war with Iran is now irrefutable. That gap will shape how allies, adversaries, and domestic voters assess his presidency. For Australia, watching a close ally commit to an open-ended military campaign in one of the world's most critical energy corridors without a clear exit plan, the right response is clear-eyed vigilance: maintaining the alliance, advocating for diplomacy, and preparing for sustained economic disruption. Find out more about how Australia's trade relationships are exposed to Middle East instability via the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.